More On Spitzer

The Wall Street Journal speaks for Wall Street when they opine that it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

The NY Times City blog has reaction from candidates and comics (the comics are the ones who are deliberately trying to make you laugh).  David Letterman:

And right about now, Spitzer is huddling with his advisers to develop a drinking problem.

Comments

[MarkO]

Finally, something interesting.
"Spitzer, who made his name by bringing high-profile cases against many of New York's financial giants, is likely to be prosecuted under a relatively obscure statute called "structuring," according to a Justice Department official."
Structuring is hardly obscure. It began about the time that any cash transaction over $10,000 became reportable. The original issue was drug dealers, but others successfully traffic in cash. The Feds would discover in the bank records transactions of, say, $9500 or so, just under the reportable amount. They then made that illegal.
The Mann Act, under which this was filed, is the old White Slave trade statute. I had to do a paper on this at Duke in 1971. It was an obsolete law even back then. In my studies of cases in the 4th Circuit (NC, VA, etc.) most of them followed complaints from a jilted lover. A poor guy had taken a girl into the woods near the state border, crossed over and had sex with her. When he broke up with her, she ran to the Feds and ratted him out. He was guilty of taking a woman across state lines for immoral purposes. (I know about the "immoral porpoises." Save it) I read the trial transcripts of these poor guys who went to prison. Stupid.
I learned there was a town called West Memphis, Arkansas from this research. It is just across the Mississippi from Elvis's home and getting there from Memphis is crossing state lines. Guys who picked up prostitutes in Tennessee and drove them across the river to hide with them, became Federal felons. It seems to me that in these times, the violators of that law are many, indeed.

But we do revel in the transgressions of the unctuous.

[centralcal]

"But we do revel in the transgressions of the unctuous."

Nice to see you again MarkO. However, I think Spitzer's reputation was a worse than just "unctuous."

[Neo]

"Never talk when you can nod, and never nod when you can wink, and never write an e-mail because it's death. You're giving prosecutors all the evidence we need"

Priceless.

[Appalled Moderate]

Just a few observations:

1. Spitzer likely deserves his fall. There really is nothing worse than somebody who uses the power of government to destroy people simply for purposes of climbing the greasy pole.

2. Beware of approving of the prosecution because the target is unpopular. That's essentially the Spitzer tactic you all detest, isn't it?

3. Should the Federal Government really be in the business of prosecuting johns? Is that truly a federal function? (Well, in this case, I guess you can argue that it's interstate commerce -- but really!)

I have no problem with Spitzer's public embarassment. He deserves it. But resignation? Prosecution? Over activty between two consenting adults?

[michaelt]

Actually, I'd prefer if he stayed in office, so we can ask Hillary! about it for the next eight months.

[kim]

Hey, Giuliani is another. The SDNY has been out of control for awhile.
=====================

[glasater]

This morning Squawk Box on CNBC showed an interview of Spitzer on 2/14/08.

Becky Quick was the interviewer and the comments that followed after the quick clip revolved around how rested and amenable Spitzer appeared.

Charlie Gasparino was in fine form and actually insulted--on air--a former lt. governor of NY by the name of Betsy McCoyle(sp?) when she went on and on about how terrible this was for the state.

He asked her what she had done to help the people of NY when she was in office and she was totally at a loss for words.

[Pofarmer]

I have no problem with Spitzer's public embarassment. He deserves it. But resignation? Prosecution? Over activty between two consenting adults?

Did you feel the same way about Foley and Craig???

Remember the only actual contact in the Foley case was with a young man who was of age, and then only through e-mails.

[Pofarmer]

I'm still dreaming they'll trace the money back to the Hillary campaign.

[kim]

So, AM, at what level should personal morality be enforced?
============

[glasater]

"Did you feel the same way about Foley and Craig???"

Straight on--and how about Gerry Studds? There was a fine upstanding D congressman.

[royf]

Kim

Easy answer, only at the Republican level.

[Neo]

Over activty between two consenting adults?

I'm realy tired of this lame excuse. Last time I checked it was illegal. If that's a problem perhaps the Governor should have suggested that the Legislature or Congress change it.

This man used every law available to go after people who really did nothing except upset his sensibilities. He deserves to resign in disgrace, as the asshat that he is.

What comes around goes around, and this clown is going down.

[Jane]

I'm really sick of being lectured to by AM. WE get it. Now let us gloat.

[royf]

"Over activity between two consenting adults?

I'm really tired of this lame excuse"

No joke, the Dems always whip that one out, funny how it was never mentioned when it pertained to Foley. As disgusting as I find the Foley situation the fact that it was between "adults" was never even mentioned in the media storm.

[Appalled Moderate]

Pofarmer:

Vitter is probably a more apt comparison...And I do feel the same way about him.

As for Foley, his stuff involved pages, who are minors under the "care" of Congress. Yech. That's different. Larry Craig involved public sex, which is, definitionally, a public crime -- and the adults who walk in on something like that aren't exactly "consenting".

kim:

Personal morality is enforced at the divorce court.

glasater:

Gary Studds, like Foley, should have resigned in disgrace.

Neo:

How about Vitter? Is it about revenge with you, or do you think like cases should be treated the same?

[Jane]

As for Foley, his stuff involved pages

No it didn't. It involved ex-pages who had reached the age of consent.

[Jane]

How many Prostitution rings did Vitter prosecute? I forget.

[Sue]

I didn't know Vitter prosecuted prostitution rings.

[anduril]

MarkO, that's the classic idea of structuring, but I believe as criminals became more sophisticated in evading bank reporting requirements so have the laws developed. For example, the WSJ notes that "[s]uspicious activity reports are filed with the IRS when banks detect somethng unusual either through their tellers or software, including transfers of large amounts of cash, unknown counterparties, or the use of known tax havens and money laundering centers."

As I said last night, it's a bit hard for me to see Spitzer going to a bank repeatedly to make numerous sub-$10K deposits: he'd be recognized, and the repeated deposits would trigger the reports he wanted to avoid. So he was probably doing something more sophisticated, along the lines suggested by the WSJ. However, I'm not interested enough in this creep to dig deeper.

Headline: Prostitute admits links to Spitzer, quits escort service in disgrace. (Instapundit, I think.)

[centralcal]

The sex, the consenting adults, yadda yadda. Isn't this about the "money?" I guess I am a dummy, but if Spitzer was spending his own money why would there have been a question at the bank, leading to a referral to the DOJ, leading to an FBI investigation of "public" corruption, or whatever?

It seems to me he must have been spending "public" money. Or am I too dumb to understand what led to the sex club?

[Appalled Moderate]

Jane:

He was stalking them -- and these kids had not consented to being stalked.

Plus Foley was never prosecuted.

[MayBee]

3. Should the Federal Government really be in the business of prosecuting johns? Is that truly a federal function? (Well, in this case, I guess you can argue that it's interstate commerce -- but really!)

If they are in the business of prosecuting the women, they should be in the business of prosecuting the men. Otherwise, I find it incredibly sexist.

I have no problem with Spitzer's public embarassment. He deserves it. But resignation? Prosecution? Over activty between two consenting adults?

Look, as Jane said, we don't need lectures from you. We don't need to revisit the entire history of prostitution to discuss this one case.

However, this isn't activity between two consenting adults. As I see it, there were at least 4 adults involved, under the table payments, and most likely no taxes paid. On top of the fact that these adults all knew they were consenting to commit an illegal act. What do we think of a governor who works so hard to evade the law?

---
What do you all think of client #4, who said he's been writing this off as a business expense. Do you think he'll get in trouble?

[MayBee]

Centralcal- he was probably spending his own money. The bank saw what looked like money laundering activity, and because he is a public official they suspected he was hiding bribes. That's why the DoJ investigated.

[glasater]

"Personal morality is enforced at the divorce court"

Appalled--That is just a beneath lame comment. Come on--you can do better.

[MayBee]

He was stalking them -- and these kids had not consented to being stalked.

That is completely untrue.
We've had endless discussions about Foley, and I'm sure people at FireDogLake would be happy to discuss him more fully now.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Why couldn't it have been Patrick Fitzgerald.

[royf]

"Plus Foley was never prosecuted."

Gee AM I'll bet even you can understand the reason he wasn't prosecuted. He didn't break the law.

[Appalled Moderate]

centralcal:

If it's public money (not something I've seen suggested), you've got a case.

MayBee:

Client #4 was either defrauding his company or the IRS. He'll likely get in trouble.

As for this case, it's likely Spitzer violated the law. It just strikes me that he is likely being prosecuted (should that happen) because of who he is. We'll see if Clients 1-8 also are charged....

[Appalled Moderate]

MayBee:

I don't recall a ton of support for Foley here; though there was a lot of "What about Gary Studds?"

Foley got what he deserved, based on the specific conduct that got him into trouble. If you don't consider Foley's conduct "stalking", then we'll just disagree, and hope some guy does not bhave like this to any teenagers you may have.

[Rick Ballard]

Don't let Apalling Democrat drag Foley or Vitter into this. It's thread thievery in defense of scum. Vitter isn't going to run again, Craig isn't running, Cunningham is in jail and Foley is gone.

Cold Cash is hanging on just as Bubba did, Blag is still rewarding the people who purchased his favors (talk about a prostitute), BHO Manse has a Syrian/Iraqi connection about it that is familiar to anyone who has followed a septic tank pump truck, Red Witch's commodities trading acuity remains a marvel of the ages and Spitzer has risen in the company he generally keeps by consorting with prostitutes.

The question is whether the people of New York will consent to having a governor of such elevated standing. Given their choice of Senators, I'd say that Spitzer is safe. What difference does one more whore in Albany really make?

[clarice]

I dislike the man and welcome his comeuppance, but it does seem to me that this was an act of self-destruction on a high scale. Everything I know about him suggests he lived his life as if he were carrying out his father's dream. And at some point something just rebelled and thus this mess. Remember that when--if--you are a parent. You gave your children life,but let them choose their own way.

The bad Clarice says, true enough to all that--when can we start an Oprah pool--the date when Spitz hits her show with De Phil and his own Daddy Made Me Do it story of humiliation and redemption.

[ben]

"I have no problem with Spitzer's public embarassment. He deserves it. But resignation? Prosecution? Over activty between two consenting adults?"

How naive can you get? This is not sex between consenting adults, the Feds don't normally get involved in that, or haven't you noticed. What is involved here is interstate trafficking of prostitutes and transfers of large amounts of money for illegal activities. And maybe illegal cover-ups thereof.

And your pathetic attempt to compare this to David Vitter on the theory "it's ok, a Republican did it too, 9 years ago" won't help Spitzer either. In Vitter's case his name turned up on a call girl's phone list, hardly the same kind of evidence we are seeing in Spitzer's case. Go write on the blackboard 1,000 times "The Spitzer Story and the Vitter Story are Completely DIfferent" then come back to the blog.

[MayBee]

It just strikes me that he is likely being prosecuted (should that happen) because of who he is.

He knew who he was before he engaged in the activity. He knew he was engaging in the activity before he decided to become who he was.
It's all his own doing.
I've never heard that he had proposed to make prostitution legal in New York, have you?

[clarice]

AM--The Foley thing was a masterpiece of political propaganda, deliberately conflating the fairly innocuous email to an ex page who was still a minor with the more lurid IMs to adults , long away from the Capitol. I think his treatment was an outrage--and the fallout to Hastert and the Republican Congressional leadership ridiculous--but then most people seem to have had the same attention to factual detail as AM does (zilch).

[clarice]

I think SPitzer will resign as part of a plea bargain and the case will not go to trial--it is clearly too embarrassing. Imagine hearing in the courtroom what the ellipses in the transcript have omitted.

[MayBee]

If you don't consider Foley's conduct "stalking", then we'll just disagree, and hope some guy does not bhave like this to any teenagers you may have.

I have teenagers. They can only control their own behavior, and if they responded as that IMing teenager did in the Foley case, I would not consider it stalking.

[ben]

"It was an obsolete law even back then."

For my education who determines whether a law is "obsolete" or not. The guy charged under it? His lawyer? Bloggers trying to defend the guy charged under it?

Just curious.

[takenaway]

Appalled, and no other politician or official has ever been prosecuted (persecuted) because of who he is?
How about Libby? How about anyone on the conservative side? How about all the crap that's thrown around about impeaching Bush ect,? Don't you get tired of twisting your words into pretzels to defend anyone on the DNC side? Man you need a good shot upside the head on occasion.

[kim]

Yeah, AM, your hypocrisy is more than moderately appalling.
================

[Appalled Moderate]

clarice:

If the government is going to prosecute him, I think that is how it plays out. If he manages to stay an unindicted con-conspirator, then he'll cling to office. It's my assessment of the personalities involved.

I dn't think this is the place to re-fight Foley. My position is the page program should be abolished, and that anyone nuts enough to send their teens to DC to be supervised by the parade of narcissists we send to Congress should have theuir heads examined.

MayBee:

If it were me, I would do what the first teen's parents did, and do what I could to have it stopped.

[kim]

An evil thing like Melanie Sloane will get hers one day, too, little doubt. What goes around, comes around.
===========================

[anduril]

OT--but still about whores of one sort or another:

Gabe Schoenfeld posted (in part):

Where’s the Outrage?
03.10.2008 - 10:29

Are we serious about defending ourselves from terrorism? The various departments of the executive branch, from the CIA to the FBI to the Department of Homeland Security, have had their lapses, and we have had ample occasion to explore some of those here.

But Congress is a coequal branch, and some of the bizarre shortcomings of the executive branch –for example, the fixation on instituting racial quotas inside our intelligence agencies, first initiated by the Clinton administration — are sustained by constituencies on Capitol Hill.

Last week, Michael Chertoff, the man charged with the awesome responsibility of running the Department of Homeland Security, was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. The Washington Times offers a snapshot of the proceedings:

Rep. Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat, led off his questions to Mr. Chertoff by demanding that the secretary’s staff stand up to be scrutinized. Minutes later, during his own questions, Rep. Melvin Watt, North Carolina Democrat, said the point was to prove that none of the 10 staffers who stood met his definition of diverse.

“You brought 10 staff people with you, all white males. I know this hearing is not about diversity of the staff, but I hope you’ve got more diversity in your staff than you’ve reflected here in the people you’ve brought with you,” Mr. Watt told the secretary.

According to a National Intelligence Estimate issued last July, al Qaeda has significantly reconstituted itself in the lawless borderlands of Pakistan and is working hard to find a way to attack the United States again.

“We assess,” the document warns,

that al Qaeda will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland...

The only thing more frightening than this assessment is the behavior of Congress in response.

But where’s the outrage? The answer is: there is none. Seven years after 9/11, we’ve seemingly become inured to the clowns now running the circus.

[kim]

However, this is why the concept of punishment in the afterlife was invented. What goes around doesn't always come around fast enough to be effective.
===========================

[clarice]

The question answers itself, anduril..the majority on the Hill is not serious. As I recall a significant number of CIA officials were working on a diversity quilt on 9/11.

[Appalled Moderate]

takenway:

I came to a position that Libby should not have been prosecuted. (It's pretty well-documented in these threads).

I have to go folks...Don't slice me up too much while I'm gone.

[clarice]

Am, If you don't think this is the place to re-fight Foley (and I agree it isn't), then why did you raise it here?

[MayBee]

MayBee:

If it were me, I would do what the first teen's parents did, and do what I could to have it stopped.

Yes, that's what you do. And when someone stops when asked, that's not called stalking.

[Appalled Moderate]

clarice:

It wasn't me. Blame pofarmer.

[anduril]

I loved this post by Mac Ranger:

Why They Call It...